2.  The applicant requests that his general discharge be changed to a medical or an honorable discharge and that his DD Form 214 be corrected to show his actual foreign service. He states, in effect, that he was not involved in any serious offense and that he was available to sign his DD Form 214 but was told not to sign it.

3.  The applicant’s military records show that he was born on 16 November 1970.  He completed 12 years of formal education.  On 13 April 1990, he entered the Delayed Entry Program and on 16 May 1990 he enlisted in the Regular Army for three years.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 94B (Food Service Specialist).  He was assigned to Germany on 14 October 1990.  He served in Southwest Asia from 14 December 1990 - 15 April 1991.

4.  On 27 June 1991, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment for disobeying a non-commissioned officer by failing to take an Army Physical Fitness Test as ordered.  His punishment was a forfeiture of $197 pay for           1 month, 14 days extra duty and restriction and reduction to pay grade E-2.  There is no evidence of any further reduction in his records.

5.  His commander initiated separation proceedings under Army Regulation   635-200, Chapter 14 for commission of a serious offense.  He cited the fact the applicant disobeyed the lawful order of a non-commissioned officer and was derelict in the performance of his duties.

6.  On 10 July 1991, the applicant acknowledged notification and consulted with legal counsel.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit a statement but declined to do so.

7.  On 12 July 1991, the applicant received a mental status evaluation.  The evaluating physician, a psychiatrist, diagnosed a personality disorder, mixed type.  “The diagnosis represents a chronic, deeply ingrained, maladaptive pattern of behavior….  It causes the soldier to be administratively unfit for duty.  This condition is not amenable to hospitalization, treatment, transfer, disciplinary action….  The disorder is of such severity that it significantly impairs the ability of the soldier to function effectively in a military environment.  It is recommended that this individual be separated… provisions of AR 635-200, Chapt. 5-13.”

8.  The appropriate commander approved the recommendation to separate the applicant, as a Private Two, E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation      635-200, Chapter 14 and directed he receive a general discharge under honorable conditions.
9.  The applicant was discharged on 13 August 1991, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct - commission of a serious offense.  He had completed 1 year, 2 months and 28 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.  His awards included the Army Commendation Medal and the Southwest Asia Service Medal with 2 bronze stars.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

11.  Chapter 5, paragraph 13 of that regulation provides for the separation of personnel for a personality disorder that interferes with assignment to or performance of duty when the condition is diagnosed as a deeply-ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration that interferes with the soldier’s ability to perform duty.  The diagnosis must have been established by a physician trained in psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis.  Separation is authorized only if the diagnosis concludes that the disorder is so severe that the soldier’s ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired.  The service of a soldier separated per this paragraph will be characterized as honorable.

CONCLUSIONS:
1.  From a purely legal standpoint, the applicant’s discharge from service was accomplished in accordance with applicable laws and regulations in effect at the time of his separation.

2.  While the conduct which led to the applicant’s separation cannot be condoned, this Board notes that in most instances the applicant’s breach of discipline that led to his discharge would normally be considered a “minor infraction” and not “a serious offense.”

3.  Although the applicant failed to apply to this board within the time required, it would nonetheless be fair and equitable to change the applicant’s reason for separation to “personality disorder” and to upgrade the applicant’s general discharge to an honorable discharge in light of the evaluation and recommendation by the attending psychiatrist who completed his mental status evaluation.

4.  Although the applicant was discharged with a personality disorder, this was an administrative discharge and does not constitute the basis for a medical separation.

5.  In view of the foregoing, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by:

    a.  showing that the individual concerned was given an honorable discharge from the Army on 13 August 1991, under the provisions of Chapter 5, paragraph 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for personality disorder; and

    b.  that the individual concerned be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 13 August 1991, denoting an honorable discharge in lieu of the general discharge now held by him.

2.  That the individual’s DD Form 214 also be corrected to show:

    a.  blocks 4a and 4b to read PV2, E-2;

    b.  block 12f to read 00 year(s), 10 month(s) and 18 day(s); and

    c.  block 26 to read JFX.

3.  That the individual concerned be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting the aforementioned corrections.












BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




                                                                                                                   
						    CHAIRPERSON